Dear Mr Blunden

I am addressing this email to you because you had the good manners to respond to me and because you appear to be under the misapprehension that your journalists are beyond reproach. 

The following is a very small list of issues which I don’t believe your journos covered properly, if at all. Given your complaints to me last time, I have run it passed a number of friends, including journalists, a solicitor and a former vice chancellor, to ensure I haven’t been rude; obnoxious; bullying; intellectually superior; arrogant; misogynistic or racist. My friends assure me it is not spam and it doesn’t include any dribble. 

My friends believe that you would desperately want to know just a few of the many stories I have given your journos which they have ignored. Given your concern about me upsetting one of your sensitive female staff in Christmas week, I have also checked that the timing of distribution of this email doesn’t clash with Christmas; New Year, Australia Day, Muslim sacred days; Jewish sacred days and the Chinese New Year. That said, I did notice that your newspaper gave a few people a real touch up in Christmas week. 

During quiet times in the Essendon saga, I have made various lists – the worst decisions; the most corrupt actions by ASADA; the most vindictive, appalling newspaper articles; the grubbiest journos; the most damaging lies by the AFL; etcetera. Tonight, I thought I should re-visit the worst decisions’ list. 

Previously, the list of worst decisions included:

1. The AFL never having seen the need to fulfil its obligations under Clause 12 of the AFL / Club (eg Essendon) / Player Agreement. If it had done so it would have ascertained that Essendon and probably every other club in the league hadn’t fulfilled its OH&S responsibilities. 
   
   
2. Furthermore, it would have realised it had a duty of care to provide a safe work place for the Essendon players. It’s failure to do so, coupled with the failures / mistakes of Andrew Demetriou, Gillon McLachlan, Adrian Anderson, Brett Clothier et al discussed below, have undoubtedly created a situation where the players will be able to sue the AFL for mental damage. 
   
   
3. The AFL never having checked compliance with Clause 7.4 of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code. If it had done so, it is extremely unlikely the whole saga would have occurred. At the very worst, there would be a written record of every substance and every medicine given to every player in the league. This would have saved an enormous amount of time during the investigation and would have denied the media the chance to destroy player reputations;
   
   
4. Brett Clothier failing to conduct an audit of Essendon immediately after his 5 August 2011 meeting with Hamilton, Hird, Corcoran and ASADA official Paul Roland. If Clothier had conducted an audit, he would have discovered that Essendon had not only failed to comply with Clause 7.4 of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code but that it wasn’t complying with its OH&S obligations. Such a discovery would have forced Clothier to conduct regular audits of Essendon and the supplements programme would definitely not have proceeded the way it did.
   
   
5. The AFL’s decision not to act on Dr Reid informing Dr Harcourt on 19 October 2011 that he had been marginalised and that Essendon players had been given peptides without his knowledge. As Clothier claimed on 17 July 2013 that he warned Hird on 5 August 2011 that all peptides were banned, the AFL should have immediately run down to Essendon and told the players to immediately stop taking peptides. 
   
   
6. The AFL then should have conducted an audit. Clause 4.6 of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code also compelled the AFL to report the matter to ASADA. It failed to do so. If we give any credence to Andrew Demetriou’s later comments, basically he sat back and metaphorically speaking watched Essendon players being injected 10,000 times, despite apparently believing it wasn’t good for their health. 
   
   
7. McLachlan’s decision not to take action against Essendon throughout 2012 despite his belief that Essendon was running a rogue supplement programme. Basically, McLachlan sat back and allowed the Essendon players to continue taking substances which he believed could be harmful to their health;
   
   
8. The AFL’s decision to do nothing about the report written by Adrian Anderson and distributed to the clubs on 24 April 2012. This report flagged possible catastrophic consequences for the clubs and players yet the AFL took no action. Inter alia, Anderson said “non-evidence based medical practices are growing which presents potential medical and injury risk ie, IV vitamins/supplements, specialist referrals without doctor input, radiation exposure and unhygienic facilities.” Mr Blunden, you read correctly, there was a risk of radiation exposure and the AFL did nothing. And your journos didn’t think it was worth writing a single word about it;
   
   
9. Evans and Robson’s decision to deny Dr Reid, Corcoran and Hird’s request in July 2012, to terminate Dean Robinson;
   
   
10. Evans’ decision to capitulate to AFL pressure to allegedly self-report and then lie about it;
    
    
11. Evans’ decision to capitulate to AFL pressure to suspend Dean Robinson on 5 February 2013;
    
    
12. Evans’ decision to bow to AFL pressure to employ Sarah Lukin;
    
    
13. Hird’s decision on 5 February 2013 to capitulate to Sarah Lukin’s demand that he accepted full responsibility;
    
    
14. Hird’s decision to capitulate on 5 February 2013 to pressure from McLachlan to say something he didn’t believe was true;
    
    
15. McLachlan’s decision not to say anything about Demetriou and Evans’ conversations between 1 February 2013 and 5 February 2013;
    
    
16. The media’s decision to ignore my repeated requests to ask Dr Reid what Evans told him on 1 February 2013 about Demetriou and McLachlan’s claim about Essendon taking banned substances. If the media had bothered to question Dr Reid, I suspect we would have got rid of Demetriou much earlier than we did;
    
    
17. Demetriou’s decision to ingratiate himself with the Labor Government, ACC and ASADA on 7 February 2013;
    
    
18. ASADA’s decision to tell the players on 19 February 2013 they wouldn’t be banned;
    
    
19. Evans’ decision to back Demetriou and not Hird;
    
    
20. Ziggy Switkowski’s decision to undertake an investigation he obviously wasn’t qualified to undertake;
    
    
21. Evans’ decision, arguably a breach of his fiduciary duty  to hand the appallingly flawed Switkowski Report to the AFL to use against Essendon;
    
    
22. The Essendon members failure to investigate whether the board had failed to fulfil its fiduciary duty when it gave the Switkowski Report to the AFL;
    
    
23. The AFL commissioners’ failure to stop Demetriou running amuck;
    
    
24. The Essendon board’s decision to capitulate to the AFL and media’s bullying not to defend the club against the AFL’s unwinnable case; 
    
    
25. Hird’s decision to capitulate to the board’s begging for him to drop his Supreme Court case;
    
    
26. The Essendon board’s incomprehensible weakness in allowing Hird to take the fall for its incredible incompetence;
    
    
27. The AFL commission’s compliance with the AFL’s actions in denying Hird and Essendon natural justice;
    
    
28. Dr Harcourt’s claim in Zurich that the players’ contracts were with the AFL and not the clubs. This will help cost the AFL plenty when the Victorian WorkPlace Authority finishes with them;
    
    
29. Essendon’s decision to capitulate to AFL pressure to settle with Dean Robinson;
    
    
30. Essendon’s decision not to insist that the AFL pay Dean Robinson’s $1 million settlement fee and Essendon’s legal costs. How the members have accepted this is beyond me. If I were a member, I’d be demanding the board took all steps to ensure the AFL picked up the tab;
    
    
31. ASADA’s decision to charge the players with taking Thymosin Beta-4 when there isn’t any proof that Alavi or anyone else supplied Thymosin Beta-4;

Although the whole saga would have been over if many of the above decisions had been reversed, the last decision always seems to carry more weight. Consequently, I tend to believe the decision by the lawyers / players / Essendon board to have the matter heard in camera is the worst decision. It is beyond my comprehension that the players’ lawyers couldn’t either see what a disastrous decision it was, or that they couldn’t convince the players / Essendon board that it was in their interests to have the matter heard in the open.

My understanding of football of any code is that the most important thing is to defend against the worst thing that could happen to you. In this instance, the worst thing that could happen to the players, the club, and ironically, the AFL, is the tribunal members having an off day and coming up with a decision that baffles us all. 

You only have to look at what has happened over the last two years to know that the impossible is possible. We all know the AFL, ASADA, ACC, the 17 clubs and the then Labor Government were made up of men and women of great intelligence and impeccable integrity, but somehow, they inexplicably made more bad decisions than has been made in the history of Australia sport. 

The best defence against the tribunal members inadvertently having a bad day was for the public to have access to all the evidence. This would have given comfort to the media if the tribunal finds for the players. On the other hand, if the tribunal finds for ASADA, the Essendon supporters would know why. As it stands, a football civil war will erupt. 

As hard as I try, I can’t understand what damage the lawyers thought the players would suffer if there had been an open hearing. If the tribunal rules in the players’ favour the players have done nothing wrong. Consequently, a favourable decision can’t damage the players’ reputations and therefore neither could the evidence. If, on the other hand, the tribunal finds against the players, the innuendo about them will be worse than actually what supposedly happened. 

Irrespective of the outcome of the hearing, the lawyers’ decision to hold the hearing in camera, or their inability to convince the players of the wisdom of an open hearing, should be put under the microscope. 

Bruce Francis